update_integration_workspaces

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that access changes and new limits apply immediately to downstream usage, which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent, and the description adds context about the return value and immediate effect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and differentiation, then provide usage guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the workspace array parameters, the description is fairly complete. It distinguishes from a sibling, advises a pre-step, notes immediate effect, and describes return info. With good annotations, it covers essential context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool controls which workspaces can use an integration and sets per-workspace limits, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool update_integration by noting that update_integration edits the org-level connection. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises to call list_integration_workspaces first to review current state, which is explicit guidance. It also states that changes apply immediately and describes the return value. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the sibling distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.